Hawks to the left of me, doves to the right…..
Shadi Hamid points out that the left-right spectrum doesn’t work terribly well when thinking about U.S. foreign policy. Matthew Yglesias spells out why with a little bit more detail: To understand the context for this, it’s important to recall that the ideological spectrum around foreign policy elites isn’t sorted all that well. On economic issues, ...
Shadi Hamid points out that the left-right spectrum doesn't work terribly well when thinking about U.S. foreign policy. Matthew Yglesias spells out why with a little bit more detail: To understand the context for this, it’s important to recall that the ideological spectrum around foreign policy elites isn’t sorted all that well. On economic issues, moderate Republicans are almost all still to the right of moderate Democrats. But on foreign policy, traditional Republican realists have a lot more in common with liberal Democrats than either do with Democratic hawks. Both are likely to have opposed the Iraq War or soured on it early. Both are likely to be skeptical of the idea that we should base our foreign policy on self-righteousness. Both are likely to appreciate the importance of taking a balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. And both are likely to be skeptical of the idea that the highest expresion of humanitarian impulses is launching unilateral wars surrounded by high-minded rhetoric. This sounds about right, but Yglesias omits a key driver behind this policy confluence. The performance of the Bush administration has eliminated the two largest points of disagreement between these two groups. Liberal Democrats used to place a much higher premium on human rights questions than realists -- but the Bush administration soured the idea of putting this issue front and center. Similarly, realists were much more willing to act unilaterally than those on the left. The intense blowback from the Bush administration's unilateralist policies, however, have blunted that impulse to some degree. So now realists are saying that we need to work closely with allies and liberals saying the U.S. should perfect its own human rights regime before looking for foreign causes.
Shadi Hamid points out that the left-right spectrum doesn’t work terribly well when thinking about U.S. foreign policy. Matthew Yglesias spells out why with a little bit more detail:
To understand the context for this, it’s important to recall that the ideological spectrum around foreign policy elites isn’t sorted all that well. On economic issues, moderate Republicans are almost all still to the right of moderate Democrats. But on foreign policy, traditional Republican realists have a lot more in common with liberal Democrats than either do with Democratic hawks. Both are likely to have opposed the Iraq War or soured on it early. Both are likely to be skeptical of the idea that we should base our foreign policy on self-righteousness. Both are likely to appreciate the importance of taking a balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. And both are likely to be skeptical of the idea that the highest expresion of humanitarian impulses is launching unilateral wars surrounded by high-minded rhetoric.
This sounds about right, but Yglesias omits a key driver behind this policy confluence. The performance of the Bush administration has eliminated the two largest points of disagreement between these two groups. Liberal Democrats used to place a much higher premium on human rights questions than realists — but the Bush administration soured the idea of putting this issue front and center. Similarly, realists were much more willing to act unilaterally than those on the left. The intense blowback from the Bush administration’s unilateralist policies, however, have blunted that impulse to some degree. So now realists are saying that we need to work closely with allies and liberals saying the U.S. should perfect its own human rights regime before looking for foreign causes.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
